You can't just dismiss things like projections and rankings without offering up better alternatives. I am referencing some sort of valuation system (which of course isn't perfect) while you offer nothing other than your opinion. I state something with some level of backup and you attack referenced information while using very little data to support your argument. I assess Ervin as a 4.00 and use several sources and explain how I came up with that valuation. You make an argument based on how valuable Ervin was last year to the Twins based on his ERA (3rd best of his career). It doesn't matter how valuable Ervin was last year (based on ERA). It matters what he will do the next two years. And now you want to throw out prospect rankings because prospects bust and unranked (or late ranked) prospects succeed. Everyone knows that propsect rankings are imperfect but if you want to disregard them then you MUST offer up a better alternative. You have at least said why you don't like Mejia so I will give you credit for that but there will be a great deal of irony in the next paragraph related to Mejia. You have dismissed Mejia as a mid/back of the rotation arm that does nothing for you. Ironically you named a bunch of prospects that were dismissed as utility players, no bat types, back starters or future RP'ers. Kyle Seager - 2010 ranking analysis by Sickels - 'I think Seager is an interesting player, but my guess is that he’s more of a utility guy than a future starter.' Alex Wood - 2013 ranking analysis by Sickels - 'If the Braves manage Wood's workload properly and the breaking ball continues to improve, he has a shot at being a mid-rotation starter no matter how weird his delivery is.' Dozier - 2010 analysis by Sickels - 'His range at shortstop is limited and he’s better at second base, but I can see him being a good utility guy.' 2011 analysis also by Sickels - 'At worst he’ll be a fine utility player, and there’s a non-negligible chance he can hit and field well enough to start for some teams.' Corey Kluber fits your look for high upside guys with command problems though. As does Danny Salazar. Crawford was a no hit all glove SS that never ranked well. Here is a great quote from Sickels 'Still, the sort of improvement Crawford has made is actually rather unusual: completely revamping a hitter's swing and hitting approach isn't easy and often fails, especially for a guy coming out of college with established habits.' I chose quotes/ranks from Sickels because the information is easily available w/o a subscription. I don't recall any different arguments being made for the above players and it really doesn't matter. Prospect rankings are of course a crapshoot but many unranked prospects that succeed were dismissed because they lacked upside. So if you don't want to use prospect rankings for a rough valuation (I never said they were the end all be all) then what do you propose for assigning rough valuations?